This paper focuses on the transmission and transformation of Anatolian hieroglyphic writing between Anatolia and Syria from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. It argues that Carchemish functioned as a major hub for the circulation and adaptation of the script already in the 13th century BC. In this context, Emar provides a key comparative case in which Anatolian hieroglyphic writing was adapted in a distinct framework. By treating digraphy not only as a documentary phenomenon but also as a diagnostic tool, the study traces how sign use, layout, and phonetic choices reveal the local reinvention of practice. The analysis also outlines plausible pathways through which expertise preserved in Syrian centres, directly and via Malatya, contributed to later revivals in South-central Anatolia. Overall, the evidence suggests that the long-term survival of Anatolian hieroglyphic writing depended not only on central traditions but also on its transformation in the peripheries, where different linguistic, administrative, and material conditions prompted durable changes in the way the script was used and understood.
Anatolian Hieroglyphs between Anatolia and Syria (Late Bronze–Iron Age): Transmission and Transformation
Maria Elena Balza
;
In corso di stampa
Abstract
This paper focuses on the transmission and transformation of Anatolian hieroglyphic writing between Anatolia and Syria from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age. It argues that Carchemish functioned as a major hub for the circulation and adaptation of the script already in the 13th century BC. In this context, Emar provides a key comparative case in which Anatolian hieroglyphic writing was adapted in a distinct framework. By treating digraphy not only as a documentary phenomenon but also as a diagnostic tool, the study traces how sign use, layout, and phonetic choices reveal the local reinvention of practice. The analysis also outlines plausible pathways through which expertise preserved in Syrian centres, directly and via Malatya, contributed to later revivals in South-central Anatolia. Overall, the evidence suggests that the long-term survival of Anatolian hieroglyphic writing depended not only on central traditions but also on its transformation in the peripheries, where different linguistic, administrative, and material conditions prompted durable changes in the way the script was used and understood.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


